"Innocent victims of the broken system should not suffer because the CCRC are too busy, underfunded and cannot afford to employ or train decent staff"

Jonathan King

My appeal against past CCRC decisions continues - it’s only gone on for 25 years so far, which is, apparently, not enough time for the CCRC to reach a correct conclusion.

But leaving aside the details of specific reasons why my 2001 conviction was wrong, my recent communications with new interim boss Dame Vera Baird have prompted the following correspondence from one of the senior Case Managers.

 “As I explained in my last letter, in circumstances where we feel that the volume of correspondence is detrimental to the case, we may take measures to restrict incoming correspondence or limit our responses to repetitive correspondence.“

I have, in the past, communicated with Helen Pitcher, the previous office holder, and received polite replies. I may have made a mistake, including my application reference number in my initial mail to Baird. Several specifics in my case, such as the CCRC considering themselves to having a remit to assume the same position as Judges, apply to mistakes made - as illustrated by Grounds 2&3 in Malkinson, where the Court of Appeal decided that the CCRC was wrong in that assumption.

Should a trial judge, for example, allow a defendant at trial time to investigate whether or not they had alternative alibis or other evidence if crucial details, such as the dates on the indictment, were changed? Should that be a CCRC decision or should it be the duty of Judges or indeed Government to decide? Should “fresh evidence” be considered by the CCRC or do some apply only to Judges?

I’m happy for it indeed to be a CCRC decision as long as those managing and examining cases have the training, budget and skills to devote months of specific time to investigating areas - such as the APPEAL charity did for Malkinson or the new defence team are doing for Lucy Letby or the hundreds of lawyers SHOULD have done in the Horizon/Post Office scandal.

Superficial assumptions are NOT satisfactory. They MUST be made by informed, registered and qualified Judges - as has recently happened in the Bell Hotel situation.

But the reply (excerpt above) to an applicant is surely not only unwise but illegal. The CCRC, having asked for and received correspondence regarding an application, should not threaten to “take measures to restrict incoming correspondence” for any reason whatsoever.

By potentially refusing to accept fresh evidence in support of an application, they are not only contradicting their remit but are on the verge of committing a crime.

We all understand their reason - that they are too busy, underfunded and cannot afford to employ or train decent staff. But innocent victims of the broken system should not suffer as a result.                                                        

By Jonathan King